Poll How silly is Star Trek?

[Qonundrum]

All in all, I think I'd have to vote a 4. That's because its entire premise is actually silly ('what if humanity fundamentally bettered itself and we invented a lot of technology that at the moment seems contrary to fundamental scientific principles / magical and we inhabit a galaxy that contains a lot of species that are peculiarly much like us (e.g. humanoids, at same stage of technological development, and ... <etc>').

So you're saying humanity shouldn't have evolved beyond caveman stage because it's silly to evolve?

Some of their gizmos are pure fantasy, meshed with more possible sci-fi possibilities. But they invented the ideas that became computer tablets, LCD flat panels, etc, etc...

It takes less time to hire a human and slap molded latex on their foreheads than to train an octopus to recite technobabble-infused dialogue... Suspension of disbelief is inevitable and matter of degree, but at least the magical skin grafting or bone knitter tools weren't used half a dozen times in each and every episode so it could be far worse. Transporters are just inevitable, though ironically "Orville" did a decent job without them. Even with the force field keeping the atmosphere inside the ship (post-TOS Trek being guilty of the same whoopsie)...

Of course, a lot of of Science Fiction shares such tropes in order to create a setting that is still somewhat recognisable to us so that wouldn't be Star Treks fault as such.

Even cavemen would recognize somewhat the future setting on screen. But they wouldn't want to take calculus at age seven either. Then again, some people really think calculus is no longer necessary, in favor of computer science and statistics and other obsolete things in some areas...)

And of course, within that "silly" premise there still are a lot of episodes that deal with "serious" themes.

If you want a silly premise, look up "Space: 1999". Didn't stop it from making a few compelling episodes in season one. Would making it silly for season two have been any improvement? (Nope. Look at "Lost in Space", which had...)

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Some of their gizmos are pure fantasy, meshed with more possible sci-fi possibilities. But they invented the ideas that became computer tablets, LCD flat panels, etc, etc...

More like popularized the ideas, if that.

 

[AresB]

More like popularized the ideas, if that.

Advanced thinking at a time when brave spacefarers in scifi stories navigated with slide rules.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Advanced thinking at a time when brave spacefarers in scifi stories navigated with slide rules.

I'm currently reading Niven's Ringworld, published 1970. Nary a slide-rule in sight. And he was far from the first to go in that sort of direction.

 

[AresB]

I'm currently reading Niven's Ringworld, published 1970. Nary a slide-rule in sight. And he was far from the first to go in that sort of direction.

Yes, Niven was a big name in the new wave of science fiction that rose at the same time TOS was conceived and aired. His first published story, the Coldest Place, featured a ship that was controlled by direct neural connection.

 

[at Quark's]

So you're saying humanity shouldn't have evolved beyond caveman stage because it's silly to evolve?

I'm saying I'm not convinced humanity evolved (in a metaphorical sense) since our caveman stage that much at all. All we've managed to build up is a thin veneer of civilization, that would crack under any real strain. At best we did learn to live in larger, more complex societies, and perhaps to not act primarily on our impulses and urges (if that even happened significantly more than today in cavemen times, we don't even know how they really "usually" behaved to one another, though we of course know there were conflicts sometimes. But we have those too in our modern world.) Instead we use more devious means to satisfy them. The humanity of the 23rd /24th century is qualitatively and profoundly different from our own, or from any development we saw humans take in the past. I don't see many indicators we are actually moving in that direction, and assuming that we would suddenly succeed in that after having failed to do so the previous 100.000 years seems a bit silly to me, yes.

That said, I think the concepts of TOS (a better, but by no means perfect humanity) and DS9 (humans are willing to play it nice, as long as their basic securities and comforts aren't really under threat) are slightly more believable than the TNG variety.

The notion of them having advanced technological gadgets that violate or circumvent the laws of nature as we understand them today is a different issue. That, too, would seem highly unlikely from our current viewpoint, but of course we have had more profound scientific revolutions in the past that fundamentally changed the scientific understanding of nature.

And of course I agree with you that Star Trek has by no means the "silliest" premise.

 

[Orphalesion]

Are the TNG humans really that "evolved"? Despite their claims otherwise, they seem to showcase the same range of negative emotions as humans today do.
All that's really different is that they're healthier and longer lived, and if you look at the last 50 years, there has been a steady trend towards healthier lifestyles and advancements in medical technology. So I don't see any problems with humans of a time 300 years from now being healthier.
They also claim to be more tolerant and, while not perfect by far, tolerance and equal treatment are treated with greater importance than even 20 years ago. I can only speak as a homosexual male, but I know that 30 years ago I would have had a much harder time existing than I do today. So I don't see it as silly that humans in the future will place bigger importance on equality and tolerance.
Whether atheism is a desirable quality or not is debatable. But even here there's a general trend towards secularism (which is a desirable thing) in the West.
So the supposed "evolved" quality of the TNG humans really hangs on their technology.

 

[anti-matter]

The Trek reboot with Pine/Quinto etel is as serious as a heart attack.

Before the reboot sure there are moments of silly but consider all the minds that have been inspired over the decades.... That alone trump's any sillyness.

 

[Nightdiamond]

All we've managed to build up is a thin veneer of civilizatio

I think DS9 pushed this question a lot, that perhaps humans seemed so evolved only because of technology and not because deep down they're really elvoved.

Are the TNG humans really that "evolved"? Despite their claims otherwise, they seem to showcase the same range of negative emotions as humans today do.

A difference I see is TNG seemed to take human evolution for granted, by the way humans constantly bragged about it.

Whereas the later shows didn't take it too much for granted (the Maquis etc)

Although ultimately, at the end, the characters would usually do the right thing, showing they were more evolved than we are today.

By the way the Starfleet uniforms were for the most part, silly.

 

[Farscape One]

I put a 2.

There are some ideas that are silly, but I don't hold it against STAR TREK. It's science fiction. It tackles a lot of difficult subjects... terrorism, suicide, immigration, equality, genocide, war, etc.

I look at it like this... there are a few things that can be considered magical, like races such as Q and the Organians. I think of magic as silly and fantastical and more along the lines science fantasy... DOCTOR WHO being likely the most popular example. Q and the like are more the exception than the rule, which is why STAR TREK will always be science fiction to me. A blue box a few feet wide that contains a living ship that's MASSIVE? Fantasy. (And this is coming from a Whovian.)

Not saying difficult subjects can't be tackled in science fantasy like DOCTOR WHO... it's just a matter of how it's presented. Both have their places in the hearts and minds of those who watch.

 

[at Quark's]

Are the TNG humans really that "evolved"? Despite their claims otherwise, they seem to showcase the same range of negative emotions as humans today do.
All that's really different is that they're healthier and longer lived, and if you look at the last 50 years, there has been a steady trend towards healthier lifestyles and advancements in medical technology. So I don't see any problems with humans of a time 300 years from now being healthier.
They also claim to be more tolerant and, while not perfect by far, tolerance and equal treatment are treated with greater importance than even 20 years ago. I can only speak as a homosexual male, but I know that 30 years ago I would have had a much harder time existing than I do today. So I don't see it as silly that humans in the future will place bigger importance on equality and tolerance.
Whether atheism is a desirable quality or not is debatable. But even here there's a general trend towards secularism (which is a desirable thing) in the West.
So the supposed "evolved" quality of the TNG humans really hangs on their technology.

Though I cannot speak about your experience (not being a homosexual myself), I know that there have been other societies in our past and today that were/are more accepting of it than our western one ca. 1900. In our own past, there's for example the ancient Romans and Greek. So I don't see the recent developments as an unique step in our development, something that humanity never did before.

I can buy that a lot of people, given a post scarcity economy, would mainly work for personal development. We see that today, people that are financially secure taking up their own interests. All people? I don't know that.

I can't buy that, in the words of Jean-Luc : "the acquisition of wealth is no longer a driving force in our lives". Sure, I know individuals that don't seem to have that as an important driving force (beyond their basic needs perhaps). But I don't think there has ever been a society that lacks such individuals. Every society I've seen or read about always had this group of individuals that is willing to do whatever it takes (within the bounds of the law or sometimes even outside it) to get more than they currently have (even if they already have more than enough to live very comfortably and needn't work for gain another day in their lives), or just grab that little more power than they have today (perhaps, as Ralph Offenhouse would say, it's ultimately more about power than money). I don't see that streak disappear from humanity altogether.

 

[1001001]

Every time I see this thread, I think of Top Secret!

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

What does this have to do with Star Trek? Nothing...

I'm at the frayed edge of sanity. Give me a break.

 

[Farscape One]

I LOVED that movie! Haven't seen it in years. Glad I'm not the only one who remembers it.

 

[Qonundrum]

What's the title? I'll run out to the store Nerdflix it. It's got that Airplane!/Mel Brooks vibe and I can't resist those...


On edit: woops, just saw the title. I need to run out to the optometrist's store increase font size so I can read the text proper...